Krupnick 2017.

Study characteristics
Methods	Randomised controlled trial
Participants	Sample size: 34 Diagnosis: DSM‐IV PTSD Method of recruitment: clinician referral Method of diagnosis: PCL‐M with cut‐off score 50 Trauma type: military Age (mean): WIRED: 35.44 years; WIRED+TAU: 44.75 years (SDs not reported) Sex: 8.8% women; 91.2% men Location: US Comorbidities: no structured screening for comorbid conditions Adjunctive therapy: a chart review revealed that several participants received adjunctive treatment. Adjunctive medication: 50% Unemployment: not reported University education: not reported Exclusion criteria: current substance dependence, acute suicidality, psychosis, gross cognitive impairment, current participation in CBT Baseline PCL‐M scores (mean item score): WIRED: 3.6 (SD 0.3); WIRED+TAU: 3.9 (SD 0.4)
Interventions	Internet programme based on trauma‐focused CBT versus treatment as usual Experimental arm WIRED (based on Interapy) Duration: 10 sessions Treatment protocol 10 writing sessions (adapted from Interapy). First 4 sessions confronted the trauma. Next 4 focused on cognitive restructuring of maladaptive thoughts about the experience. Final 2 sessions emphasises leave‐taking and social sharing. Therapist contact: as required. A short response and further instructions sent after each writing session. Type of contact: online Automated contact: none Type of therapist: psychologist Treatment fidelity: unclear Comparator arm TAU A chart review after completion of the study showed that 4 participants began and 1 completed a course of cognitive processing therapy. 8 participants received antidepressant medication. 1 participant received 13 sessions of acupuncture.
Outcomes	PCL‐M (mean item scores); PHQ‐9 (could not be entered into meta‐analysis)
Notes	Funding source: grant from Telemedicine and Advanced Technology Research Center, U.S. Department of Defense. Declarations of interest among the primary researchers: unclear
Risk of bias
Bias	Authors' judgement	Support for judgement
Random sequence generation (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Allocation concealment (selection bias)	Unclear risk	Not reported
Blinding of participants and personnel (performance bias) All outcomes	High risk	Impossible to blind participants or therapists.
Blinding of outcome assessment (detection bias) All outcomes	Low risk	All measures administered after baseline were self‐reported and completed online.
Incomplete outcome data (attrition bias) All outcomes	High risk	Dropout rate > 75%. Reasons for dropout not fully reported.
Selective reporting (reporting bias)	Low risk	Study protocol not available but it was clear that the published reports included all expected outcomes, including those that were prespecified.
Other bias	High risk	Small sample size. Participants received other interventions during the trial.